Sierra-Serrano v. Warden, FCI Sandstone

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Edgar Manuel Sierra-Serrano,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden, FCI Sandstone,
Respondent.
No. 25-cv-2274 (KMM/EMB)
ORDER
On May 29, 2025, Petitioner Edgar Manuel Sierra-Serrano filed a Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus alleging that “the Federal Bureau of Prisons is miscalculating his good
conduct time, First Step Act time credits, and Second Chance Act credits—and ultimately
his Conditional Transition to Community date,” which depends on the calculation of those
credits. (Dkt. 1-1 at 1 (cleaned up).) As relief, he seeks declarations from the Court
“establishing the maximum number of [time credits he] can earn over the life of his
sentence” and “establishing [his] Conditional Transition to Community date to be July 2,
2026[.]” (Dkt. 1-1 at 6.) The matter is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge
Elsa M. Bullard’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Dkt. 15) recommending that
Petitioner Edgar Manuel Sierra-Serrano’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) be
denied. Mr. Sierra-Serrano did not file objections to the R&R.
In the absence of objections, the Court reviews an R&R for clear error. Nur v.
Olmsted County, 563 F. Supp. 3d 946, 949 (D. Minn. 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
and Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). The Court
CASE 0:25-cv-02274-KMM-EMB Doc. 18 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 3

2
discerns no error in Judge Bullard’s R&R. As the R&R notes, the number of credits that
Mr. Sierra-Serrano is entitled to—and thus when he would potentially be eligible for a
Conditional Transition to Community—depends on events that may or may not happen in
the future. (See Dkt. 15 at 5–7.) Even then, “any transfer to prelease custody . . . would be
wholly discretionary on the part of the Bureau of Prisons.” (Id. at 8.) The Court agrees with
Judge Bullard’s conclusion that, as a result, Mr. Sierra-Serrano has raised only a
speculative risk of harm, which is insufficient for this Court to have jurisdiction over his
Petition. See TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 438 (2021) (concluding a future
risk of harm was too speculative to establish Article III standing). Therefore, the Court
adopts the R&R and dismisses the Petition without prejudice. See County of Mille Lacs v.
Benjamin, 361 F.3d 460, 464–65 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating that a dismissal solely on
jurisdictional grounds should be without prejudice).
Before concluding, the Court notes that Mr. Sierra-Serrano has asked the Clerk’s
Office to calculate his First Step Act (FSA) credits. 1 (Dkt. 16.) Unfortunately, neither the
Court nor the Clerk’s Office can do so. Neither has the information required to make such
a calculation, and it is the Bureau of Prison’s job to do so in the first instance.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 15) is ACCEPTED;
1 The Court construes Mr. Sierra-Serrano’s letter as a motion to calculate his FSA
credits. See Associated Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Mid-Am. Transp. Co., 931 F.2d 1266, 1273
(8th Cir. 1991) (stating that “a letter may constitute a valid motion[]”).
CASE 0:25-cv-02274-KMM-EMB Doc. 18 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 3

3
2. 	Petitioner Edgar Manuel Sierra-Serrano’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Dkt. 1) is DENIED; and
3. 	This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Let Judgment be entered accordingly.
Date: March 24, 2026 	s/Katherine M. Menendez
Katherine M. Menendez
United States District Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-02274-KMM-EMB Doc. 18 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 3